thanks Ohio, I'll change that. I thought they looked a little different from the shape but hadn't seen any other contenders.

FF, With this type of glass it's not a matter of shape matches or anything like that. These companies all copied each other profusely. There are a number of shapes I could show you of many different types of glass from various companies that are all very similar. Before seeing some of these shapes you might think they were unique shapes.. but they're not. Apparently this was even true over here in America. The vase that Ohio pointed out from my collection is very very close to a Steuben shape.. but it's not.

Adding to the confusion is that very often a retailer or a importer would contract a shape and decor from a number of various companies. they'd all fill the same shape and decor and it would ship out. what do you get? the same piece of glass made by 5 different houses. It was common place. It makes it all very confusing. Sometimes you get lucky and find a mark on a piece that shows provenance such as the one you have.

the markings on this are definitely Harrach markings. I have seen many pieces of absolutely confirmed Harrach with markings just like this and never a piece of Loetz.

This piece is definitely a harrach version of the carneol. The uranium is a moot point. Both companies used Uranium and did not use uranium at different points in production. Loetz started making this kind of glass in 1882 iirc. the early production didn't have uranium but later production did. Harrach didn't have any such rule that is known. Some has uranium and some does not.

And yes there is a lot of Harrach identified as Loetz in the Carneol arena. Sometimes Even people with a lot of it aren't sure which is which. I have a few such pieces and one that I am looking into more right now that I currently have Id'd as Loetz. (which is how I found this two month old thread)

thank you again for your detailed response. At the outset I should say that whether or not this vase is Harrach or Loetz is not an issue for me. It is a beautiful vase and desirable whichever maker it originated from. However, I beg to differ that the faint enamelled numbers on the base are a deciding factor on positively identifying that this came from Harrach.

I'm not saying it isn't a Harrach vase, indeed I raised the issue originally. But in my view it takes more than one significant factor to try and id a vase if you don't have the original pattern books or positive confirmation from the maker. The link you have given to Warren's site is one I use regularly. There is one vase on that page which appears to have enamelled numbers done using the same enamel as my vase, the others don't. That one vase is not positively id'd as Harrach as far as I can see, using either a pattern book or confirmation from Harrach that the vase came from them.In addition to which, on that page, there is a vase there with peacock eyes, that I happen to think is quite possibly a Stuart vase. Likewise in Truitt's there is a vase on page 67 id'd as Harrach that I believe is also a Stuart vase.There is also a vase in Gulliver's Victorian Decorative Glass page 103 British Designs 1850-1914 (copyright 2002), that looks to be similar to at least two pieces on the link page you just gave. It also has a P number written on the bottom and a stamped registered design number with the number ascribed to John Walsh Walsh in the Registered Designs book of Representations, although it records that a certificate was not issued for this number. Personally I am of the opinion or guess that the vase has a very Bohemian look to me but that is just instinct/guesswork - and also that the RD issue is an anomaly somehow. But whether or not t is,is not actually confirmed by either of the two vases on the link page being positively id'd as Harrach either. And I could well be wrong - it could well be that that particular range of vases are in fact English and by Walsh Walsh.So you can see what I mean? I don't think it is possible to just say that because of the numbers on the base this is positively id'd as Harrach.

Again I should stress that I'm not saying it isn't Harrach or isn't Loetz. It's of no concern to me financially (unless I wish to sell in which case it will become more important). I'm just raising the issues that going by one factor alone is not enough I don't think, to id a vase.

I do not know who the vase is by, but felt it is a pertinent point to bring up that in many cases we are not even 100% sure who did the enameling on many pieces. Many houses bought blanks and decorated them in house. Hosch is surely an example of just such a firm. In this case the item is of a dual attribution.... Many piece of the Hosch catalog are Kralik glass, hence a Kralik / Hosch attribution.

Let me play the devil's advocate here for a minute......

I do have a question for Azelismia.... Can you please cite a reference or provide links to or images of documented Harrach examples for your statement other than attributed pieces you have seen.

The markings on this are definitely Harrach markings. I have seen many pieces of absolutely confirmed Harrach with markings just like this and never a piece of Loetz. ...............the mark is proof positive... it's Harrach not Loetz.

Is there documentation (proof positive) that this is a Harrach mark? Without such documentation, the best it seems we could say for sure is that it was decorated by firm xxxxx on what appears to be possibly a Harrach or Loetz blank, or we could say that the mark seems to fall in line with the marks found on some examples of known Harrach production.

I would also address shape as a solid reference point in more cases than not.... shapes which are close to each other are not the same as shapes that are the same. A close examination of shapes generally will lead one to a determination if it is a "Design Shift (copying a shape) or actually the same shape with a small variation as a result of hand production. IMHO, many similar shapes were not actually copied but were simply so generic that they resembled each other by simplicity of design..... That being said, the comparison of shapes should, by necessity, involve using examples which preferably contain a design element which is more likely than not to be specific to a particular house.......

thanks Ohio, I'll change that. I thought they looked a little different from the shape but hadn't seen any other contenders...........The vase that Ohio pointed out from my collection is very very close to a Steuben shape.. but it's not.

I will use your "Close to Steuben" Wheeling piece as an example.....

As the old saying goes "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" ..... :thup:

Well in the U.S. just about everyone sold to the decorating houses so you have to know "who" for the the decoration. Then add to that some companies actually sold blanks to other companies even though they were competitors. From 1928 to 1932 Tiffin sold their 151 line black satin blanks to Consolidated then Consolidated staff artists decorated them & sold them as Consolidated...always with the large air brushed parrot that was far different from tne Tiffin parrot. Result? Both collecting groups recognize them as Tiffin/Consolidated & there is no problem with attribution.

Its a tough challenge at times no matter what side of the pond you are on due to these factors that present a "Only Questions-No Answers" scenerio...one that I don't attempt to tackle much anymore.

As for Harrach...about 6 months ago I was given the "Harrach Project" website when I had a tough Harrach question. Problem is that the site's email addy as well as two other email addys for the individual all came back undeliverable & after repeated attempts I finally gave up so I can save you some time...don't bother.

I am the owner of "Project Harrach" better known as Glasscollector.net, and I apologize for my site email being down at the moment. Unfortunately, aside from the avalanche of spam, the majority of inquiries I receive are from people wanting me to ID their glass and tell them how much it's worth. With a very busy work schedule, it's taken a back seat for a bit as other priorities take precedence. Later this year I will be revamping it, adding new content, new Harrach research (I have a ton), and bringing my site email back online once I get a more robust spam solution. You are more then welcome to email me from this site.

A couple of points to make about some of the comments in this thread:

The Truitt Bohemian glass books are more accurate then most people will ever know. Most of the content, particularly in the first volume, is sourced from exceedingly knowledgeable Czech (as in Czech citizens) Bohemian glass experts who have been researching Bohemian glass most of their adult life. They have hoards of original documents, sales catalogs, factory design books, etc., on which they base their attributions. It's not free from errors, but I would say it is without a doubt one of the more error free books when it comes to glass research.

I would like to clear the following comment:

The vase in Gulliver's Victorian Decorative Glass page 103 British Designs 1850-1914 (copyright 2002), that looks to be similar to at least two pieces on the link page you just gave. It also has a P number written on the bottom and a stamped registered design number with the number ascribed to John Walsh Walsh in the Registered Designs book of Representations, although it records that a certificate was not issued for this number. Personally I am of the opinion or guess that the vase has a very Bohemian look to me but that is just instinct/guesswork - and also that the RD issue is an anomaly somehow.

Having known this type of glass was Harrach for quite some time, when I saw this attribution in Gulliver's book, I was shocked that he attributed it to JWW (especially considering it looks nothing remotely similar to anything documented by Eric Reynolds as JWW). There are clearly several other Bohemian pieces in the book attributed to various British makers, but to some extent this is expected as tons of Bohemian glass was made for the British market, much of which was contracted by importers, and even prominent British glass houses. Of course it's well documented that Harrach made not only glass blanks, but also completely finished products (enameled, or cut/engraved, etc.) which were sold by other glass houses as their own products.

The main problem trying to attribute the vase in question based on the mark shown in Gulliver's book, is that the RD# shown is not complete, as the stamp didn't make it's full impression on the base of the vase.

The full stamp reads: Rd No. 107802 MADE IN BOHEMIA

The vase in Gulliver's book was in fact made by Harrach, produced under contract by Krausse and Auerbach, which is the firm that registered the design (a very German sounding importer at that). Deborah Truitt did a research trip to England a few years ago, and as she was planning to visit the British Archives, I asked her to track down this particular RD#. How Gulliver could attribute it to anyone, let alone JWW, based on an incomplete RD#, is anyones guess.

It's wishful thinking on the part of the seller on the Loetz attribution. I find it ironic that dealers, and auction houses tend to error on the side of the more expensive price tag, then simply saying they don't know.

Now on to the topic of discussion.

I had a hard time seeing the mark on your vase. I was initially thinking it was just a letter, followed by three numbers, but I see now it's more like P.588 or P.688 with a 5/2 underneath it (thanks Alisa for the clarification, I really was having a difficult time seeing anything on there).

Harrach definitely made Carneol glass (as well as a gamete of other "stone" glass), and this would be a typical Harrach mark of design and decoration numbers. I've seen very few pieces of Loetz that had any type of numbers at all on the base, but the few examples I've seen tended to be Roman numerals on Victorian era Loetz glass.

I'm visiting the Harrach factory in May, and plan to spend further time in the Harrach museum depository where there are around 5,000 pieces of Harrach antique glass. I'll examine the examples of Harrach Carneol in their collection to see if they may hold additional clues.

thank you Brian for such a detailed reply Thanks also for the explanation of the mentioned vase in Gullivers.I have to say reference books can generally be difficult. I was not criticising either source (Truitt's or Gulliver's) as I recognise the enormous amount of time, effort, knowledge and money that goes into providing such a reference. I was however pointing out that sometimes it is prudent to question what is found, especially if new proof-positive information becomes available.Once the information is out there in print it gets used as verbatim, if an id is given, and it makes it difficult in the future to adjust as new information becomes available. Gulliver's did not id that vase as Walsh Walsh, and as far as I can see have only id'd vases where there are patterns or and registered designs to support the id. On the Truitt's pieces I questioned, those vase have been id'd as Harrach but I do think they are not. I think one of the problems that can occur is that sometimes vases are found in a particular 'manufacturers collection' and it is assumed they are therefore from that factory, but actually they may just be 'part' of the collection and from a completely different source originally. I'm sure I have read on here that that has happened with Richardson pieces I believe.

If I hadn't questioned my vase at the start of this thread, I could have quite happily carried on deciding it was definitely Loetz based on the pictures in Truitts and other items I have found and eventually maybe sold it as such. The reason I started this thread was that I am interested to find out some more information on my vase and I do think there are a number of possible outcomes from that questioning. Once you have completed your visit, if you felt you could share the information, I would be really interested to hear what your findings are regarding the Marmoriertes vases and would be most appreciative if you have time to update the thread Many thanks againm

Brian glad you are updating your site. Was just a bit frustrating getting the emails kicked back after Dave Peterson gave me your email & also the site email. My question wasn't one of values, it was a basket that Dave thought you might have seen in your travels. I'll wait for the updates & contact you. Ken